Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer proved this once again yesterday when he caved in to terrorist threats — or rather, the potentiality of terrorist threats — and in the process demonstrated how rickety the main support beam of our Constitution is, at least while people like Breyer are sitting on the bench.

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor — with 30 members in his church — threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on “GMA” that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

Here’s their exchange (taken from the video on the page linked above), after Stephanopolous introduces the Koran-burning case and how it relates to free speech:

Stephanopolous: The conversation is now global.Breyer: Indeed. And you can say with the Internet, you can say this: Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the ‘crowded theater’ today? What is ‘being trampled to death’?

Breyer is implying here that in the Internet age, the entire digitally connected world is one vast crowded theater, and whoever says anything to cause a mass panic, or a violent reaction anywhere on Earth could be violating the “don’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater” exception to the Constitutional principle of free speech.

There are so many things wrong with this line of thinking that I hardly know where to begin. Off the top of my head:

Should the Behaviors or Opinions of Non-Citizens Have Any Bearing on the US?

The behavior, or possible future behavior, of people outside the United States should have no bearing whatsoever on our laws or on the interpretation of our Constitution. Down this road lies the complete extirpation of our national sovereignty. Should we jettison the Second Amendment because other countries ban guns and disapprove of our gun-happy society? Should we abandon even having national borders because so many foreigners want to violate our immigration laws? And, most pointedly, should we allow the threats of irrational mobs in the mountains of Pakistan to influence one iota the legal structure of our nation?

Justice Breyer thinks so, apparently.

Jihad is Not a Natural Phenomenon

The “crowded theater” example refers specifically to a situation whereby false or misleading speech can lead to accidental or unintentional death or injury due to the undirected behavior of a panicked crowd. Under this principle, to cite a well-known example, Orson Welles could have theoretically been charged with disturbing the peace for his infamous 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast which convinced many terrified Americans that we had been invaded by Martians (had in fact anyone been injured in the ensuing panic — luckily, no one was, and Welles was never charged). But that is an entirely different animal from speech which may incite some malefactor to take offense and potentially cause harm. For example, would it be illegal to stand up in Yankee Stadium and yell “Go Red Sox!” if by so doing you incited Yankees fans to start punching Bostonians? Wouldn’t the assailants be the ones to blame, not the Red Sox fan? Would it be illegal to praise Martin Luther King Jr. at a KKK rally, because you may incite the Klan members to attack innocent black bystanders? Wouldn’t it be a bit more logical to arrest the KKK members who committed the violence rather than the person whose statement pissed them off?

You Can’t Yell Fire in a Crowded Internet

If we take Breyer’s argument to its conclusion, then any word spoken, or any action taken, anywhere in America, could be considered to have taken place on the global stage for a global audience, because, by golly, someone could record it on their iPhone, upload it to YouTube, it could go viral, and within 10 minutes a million enraged Muslims are calling for a global jihad — all because you wrote the letters “K-O-R-A-N” on a scrap of paper and tossed it into your backyard barbecue pit, as your tipsy drinking buddy filmed it. This would mean the end of the presumption of privacy, as the existence of a globally interconnected world transforms anything you do or say anywhere, in any setting, into a potential “public” act. Breyer is suggesting that not only are you forbidden from yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, you can’t yell “FIRE!” anywhere, because word might reach the theater that someone somewhere yelled “FIRE!”

Where exactly do you draw the line, if Breyer’s principle is applied? As Ed Morrisey insightfully pointed out at Hot Air, “Breyer’s argument would put government in charge of judging the qualitative value of all speech.” And that’s the first step (and the second and third step as well) toward totalitarianism.

93 Comments, 58 Threads

1.
miriam rove

Zombie: with a great deal of respect, I think this pastor has every right to burn the Koran and I anot sure exactly what Justice bryere is thinking. but I can tell you this you have absoulutltly no qualification to judge or write about him. stick to simpler and lesser imporatant issue which you would be more qualified to write about.
M

You are right. However, hard people are sometimes needed to deal with the soft-headed and earnestly bigoted souls who would deny to (their own?) Jewish people the right to live and breathe in peace and security on this troubled earth. I think you are Humpty-Dumpty and your shell bits cry woe.

So are you, miriam. You and HuffPo and Daily Kos etc.. belong together.

Meanwhile Zombie, i may, or may not, agree with you, but i will defend till death your right to say it. In this case, i agree with you. If we, the people, will not keep tabs on the highest authority in the country, who will? Looney Left like Miriam?

When you’re not ‘privy’ of a recurrent troll, sometimes you don’t realize why an author responds the way they do.

Some trolls switch tactics when they gain no traction (or attention) by trying to say something everyone will agree with (and a FIRST! comment) and then, once they have the ‘hook’, it devolves into Lefty agitprop.

“With all due respect,” usually means “I am about to say something disrespectful.”
“No offence!” usually means “I am about to say something offensive but you’re now not allowed to be annoyed thereby.”
“It’s not you, it’s me!” usually means “it’s not I, it’s you.”
“And when I say ‘I’m Sorry’, I mean ‘Screw You’.”

but I can tell you this you have absoulutltly no qualification to judge or write about him. stick to simpler and lesser imporatant issue which you would be more qualified to write about.

Say what!? That’s is the inane statement of the week. Why again does he have no qualification to judge or write about him? What, Zombie isn’t capable of identifying rediculous thought when he reads it. He’s a Supreme Court Justice, so he’s above reproach? I’m sure if you ox was being gored you would have plenty to say against whatever justice sided against you. This is America, not some middle aged monarchy were the peasents aren’t allowed to question the ruling class.

Here’s what I know about Zombie’s qualifications: he has a fine analytical mind, clear communications skills, and integrity of thought. Beyond that, he might be a grade-school dropout or an Ivy League PhD. Who knows, and who cares?

Miriam,
Simpler? Explain this to me: Many attorneys took part in drafting the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why then, is it written in plain English (for the 18th century) instead of convoluted 18th century legal jargon? It is, after all, a legal document. Could it be because the Framers wanted every citizen to be able to easily understand its plain language? Our Constitution is not difficult to read or comprehend.

Many of us regular, ignorant citizens have actually read the Federalist Papers and a multitude of other writings to help us understand original intent, as well.

Therefore, what you are saying-that us regular citizens cannot possibly understand the complexities of Constitutional law so such matters should be left to our betters- is a fine example of elitist thought and how it has infected the body politic.

Miriam, dear, if you grasp nothing else about the Founders of this great land, understand this: they despised royalty. They had just fought a revolution to free this land from the British monarchy. It was their most fervent desire that this nation be governed by its citizens. No aristocracy, no king, no lords, no privileged class. Your attitude clearly places our Supreme Court justices in a privileged class of aristocracy, better and smarter than us mere mortals and not to be questioned. A very dangerous path that leads straight to tyranny, the very tyranny the Founders sought to avoid by crafting the Constitution the way they did.

Seriously, what is the process to impeach a SCOTUS justice? I expected this comment from the likes of Kagan and the wise-ass Latina, but Breyer has got to go. I mean, I’m no Oliver Wendell Holmes (or Douglas for that matter), but even I have heard of the 1st Amendment.

Zombie:
“Breyer is suggesting that not only are you forbidden from yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, you can’t yell “FIRE!” anywhere, because word might reach the theater that someone somewhere yelled “FIRE!””

I just want to go on the record here about two things that have gotten under my skin for a long time about this.

First- You can indeed yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. No one is actually preventing you from doing so. You might not like the consequences for doing it, but you CAN do it.

Because

Second- There is a time when it is perfectly appropriate and even commendable to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater…(when the theater is actually on fire).

As to Breyer and his psycho-babblings…I’ll file that away for the next time that some froot-loop wants to express himself by defiling the objects and images sacred to Holy Mother Church.

Maybe by threatening to burn a few moonbats at the stake for their manifold deliberate and malicious blasphemies, we can induce Breyer et al to enforce a bit of civility in their Leftist discourse.

Actually, if I was in a crowded theatre and some one smelled smoke, I sure the hell would hope that someone yelled fire. I mean, figure the options. You can sit their and burn. Everyone could panic over the announcement and get trampled. Or everyone could calmly leave the theatre. Or, we can pull a Breyer and keep that knowledge a secret sneak out with a smirk. I wonder If Breyer goes to the movies?

The possibility of inciting violence is sufficient to remove an activity from Constitutional protection.

Therefore, homosexuality is unconstitutional because it can provoke violence against homosexuals.
Therefore, Al Gore’s message is unconstitutional because it can provoke violence against the Discovery Channel.
Therefore, professional sports championships are unconstitutional because they can provoke violence in the winning team’s city.

But wait, it gets better…
Want flag burning to be unconstitutional? Attack anyone who burns a flag.
Given this, was it unconstitutional for Breyer to speak, since his words can provoke people to react to stimuli violently, in order to have that stimuli declaired unconstitutional?
If so, should ABC be shut down for giving Breyer a soapbox from which to incite this violence, becoming culpable themselves?

Are you telling me mr Breyer that I can’t burn a book that I own in my own back yard because deranged muslims in Pakistan or Afghanistan might go on a rampage..?
I better ask;
Sorry mr muslim, does it offend you me eating a ham sandwich?
Can my wife please walk around uncovered….
Or does this offend you too?…enough to riot kill and burn?

Has a SC justice ever been impeached? If not, time to start. This man is a disgrace to the court and the nation, not to mention a very serious threat to civil liberties. Just wait until we have a whole court full of clowns like him.

In 1938, using Breyer’s mindless wonderings, a Jew should not have been allowed to criticize Hitler and the Nazis. Much less burn a Nazi flag. Moreover, any pro-choice, pro abortion statements are not constitutionally protected because it’s been shown they can promote violence. Doctors need to perform abortions like they need a hole in the head.

A similar thing occurs in universities. A group invites in a controversial speaker, another group threatens to disrupt the proceedings, the university charges the first group exorbitant fees for security, and the talk is canceled.

It’s too much when a supreme court justice, who we must presume is smarter than the average person, attacks the first amendment in such an ambiguous way. Breyer’s ambiguity was not conditional and that cannot easily be forgiven. If he does not clarify his comments, impeachment is appropriate. It would be a circus, but there should not be second thought when a tenet of the constitution is challenged so colloquially.

Judges serving under Article III of the Constitution, which of course includes the Justices of the Supreme Court, may hold their offices “while on good behavior.” Article III judges may therefore be removed from office for much lesser malfeasance than “treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors” as required to remove Article II officers off the United States. The Framers of the Constitution were quite deliberate in the language used, and it is reasonable to believe that the language of the Constitution means that Federal judges can and should be impeached and removed from office for merely failing to follow the law in their holdings in court, let alone actual criminal behavior. Tom DeLay was right about this.

Appeasement is spreading pretty broadly. Only a few days ago, Martin Peretz of the liberal “New Republic” magazine wrote regarding the planned burning of the Koran the following: “I believe that the Obama administration should go to the Supreme Court or maybe tactically to the most sensible and civilized appellate court and seek an injunction against this atrocity”. Peretz is known to be fairly critical of radical Islam, yet even he is apparently ready to “submit”.

Muslims wanna build a mosque aka “Muslim YMCA with a MOSQUE on top (like a purdy lil’, shiny cherry, that thar kewt wittle Mosque)” even though it incites the fear/hurt/pain/evil for which the ‘idea’ of Muslim TERRORISM (yeah,I said the “T” word) stands, from not only the direct victims of the 911 TERRORIST atrocity in NY, but for ALL AMERICANS from all over the USA who were traumatized by the horrific of TERROR acts in the name of ISLAM on the date of Sept. 11, 2001.

The most hilarious spectacle of the “Religion of Peace” schism from all sanity here, was when one lowly pastor made a point that he’d burn the Koran in honor of 9/11 [media picked it up] and the “Muslims” who think their “Religion of Peace” is so damned peaceful, get all ‘fired up’ (pun intended) and start burning an effigy of our US president and the US flag like a bunch of third world, murderous lunatics in response to just a ‘mention’?

But, even WORSE than the above? The idiot Muslims who claimed, “OH no! Don’t do that! You will make it worse for the soldiers!”

OH REALLY

Tolerance? For THEE but not for ME?

You psycho “moderates” totally accept your whackadoodle psycho Muslim brethren! Otherwise you would have not ‘warned’ and ‘condemned’ the burning of the shitty, evil, man-made ‘koran’ by ONE American pastor. You Muslims have babies that have high mortality rates because you force young girls to marry old men within their own kin and your retardation and low IQ is part of the equation of why you’re all so STUPID and PSYCHO. You’re ALL FRICKIN’ SICKOS!

I think that the Supreme Court has defended the rights of people to burn the American Flag. So this obnoxious behavior is OK. I have accepted the fact that though it is distasteful to me. So if burning the Koran is distasteful to someone else that is just to damn bad! I am thinking of burning Mexican flags myself to protest illegal immigration and the Mexican governments abuse of our friendship( read financial aid).
The old hack statement about yelling fire in a theater is only punished IF THERE IS NO FIRE. If there is a fire yell away.
If you can convince your Congressman to impeach and your Senator to convict Mr. Beyer could be out of there by the next Presidential election. Violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution does fit the “high crimes and misdemeanors ” criteria.
I think both Judges and elected officials had better start controlling their massive egos, and governing within the bounds of the Constitution, because no one wants to see a French style revolution here.

Justice Breyer would be very good at following orders. After all, not to do so would provoke the SS to be violent. You’re right Zombie, this guy has got to go. Unfortunately, with the current POTUS we would only get something worse.

There’s no reasoning with white guilt – the desire to freeze the West up lest anything happen that might offend the Other or incite violence. To the guilt-endowed, any attempt at reasoning would be discounted as white logocentric privilege that must be pre-empted when it starts to talk of a right to say whatever it wants. What’s left is to show the Breyers of the world where their sacred imperatives and rules further lead. But impeach him if you can.

Is it just possible that the Constitution and the various Amendments are inadequate to deal with the threat of Islam in the US? I think they are. It would be nice if the issue were just enforcing freedom of speech. Of course, it’s true that ‘free speech’ on this subject is currently ‘enforced’ in a way that encourages the spread of Islam. Yet, even were it enforced in such a way that anti-Islam sentiments were allowed, the problem doesn’t end.

Free speech is one aspect of a problem that includes buying of influence, penetration of media, threat of violence that can be understated (Rauf) since examples of reactions to Pastor Jones’ non-act are already present – 22 dead in Kashmir. Then there is the economic self-interest of tens of millions of Americans, an interest that directly contradicts the need for security against various suicide bombers, shooters, etc. So, millions to the oil companies daily, and now 60 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia to keep the coffers of Jihad bursting.

If you wish to use the issue of Islam as an example to tweak the enforcement of the Constitution, that’s fine. However, ideological and practical clashes over this – even if resolved to the liking of conservatives – address only a small part of this war with Islam. Make Jones safe from Hillary’s ‘advice’ and let folks ‘go all Salmon Rushdie’ on Islam, it can well just be a form of venting while Americans busily pay terrorists to kill and convert them. 15 Saudi hijackers, was it? The Ambassador to the US for years and years, his wife paid 75K to support two of them in San Diego. The dhimmitude of the elites gallops on, Constitutional arguments or not.

Zombie– you have lost your way– your photo journalism in the old days was very good– now you come across as a shill for hasbora –When all else fails, point to a few examples of outrageous anti-Semitism, generalize them, suggesting that that is what motivates critics. It stings, and may be over-used, but it can silence or put critics on the defensive.
Get back to what you are good at– stop the propaganda– it is not working

FWIW, I think this pastor is an attention-seeking narcissist jerk and his act an obvious, deliberate provocation. What bugs me is the obvious “two weights and two measures” being handled. You cannot on the one hand ban Koran burning and on the other hand claim “P*ss Chr*st” is art.

If nothing else, the double creates a perverse incentive for any political (or other) pressure group to threaten violence in order to shut up its critics. This isn’t just about Islam — will pamphlets about abortion be made illegal because of Randall Terry? Or pamphlets about dieting after a radical BBW group threatens to bomb Jenny Craig Weight Loss?

And don’t forget that any restrictions on freedom of speech that are convenient to liberals now may one day be used against them. Remember the famous speech attributed to Sir Thomas More:

MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man’s laws, not God’s-and if you cut them down-and you’re just the man to do it-d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

I’m for “impeaching” any justice over the age of 72, and encouraging the retirement of most of those over 65 – frankly, over 60. Breyer is … googling … just 72! I rest my case.

Frankly, the whole idea of the effective supremacy of the “supreme court” over the other branches of government seems misguided, and the lifetime appointments even moreso. At the least, I suggest the constitution could really use a bit of amendment prohibiting these nine guys from acting like 450 elected representatives, say they may *only* rule on (against) federal legislation and not demand prescriptive remedies.

If Congress votes to restrict speech and the likes of Breyer upholds it, well, that’s too bad. If some schlub athiest in Bezerkely sues to block the insult of Islam on this basis and gives the court a chance to rule – I say that is an improper process.

You CAN shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater IF there is indeed a fire! If shouting lies were illegal, every left liberal trying to incite panic in the populace by hysterically yelling about Global Warming and Imminent Doom, would be in jail now.

TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! I strongly advise that nobody reply to Victor. All he ever does is come
forth with some anti-Israel/anti-Jew spin occasionally mixed in with some pro-Iranian stuff. He is better
at this than most trolls, especially with the way he throws some Old Right isolationist comments in, but
his substance remainst firmly against our vital interests.

So ignore him and maybe he will quite posting. If, on the other hand, he tries to dominante the comments section with inumerable (probably automated) posts, then Zombie really should block him.

Look—Nothing wrong with propaganda/PR as long as it does not conflict with Americas interests– Saudis, French etc do it.
My point is that the hasbara efforts are counter productive– calling everyone who criticizes the current Lieberman/fascist Israeli regime– as anti Jewish– and invoking the Shoah –devalues that currency– but more important– it is obscene.

Israel has allocated $25-million for hasbara efforts of which $15-20 million will be dedicated to romancing the stones of the pro-Israel social networking and media world: first target is Arianna Huffington.

The point is — it is not working–after the murder of Rabin by the ultra orthodox settler Amir in 1995 things have gone down hill fast as PMs Barak and Ehud Olmert said they would —-the future is that of the the old S Africa–those who care about Israel do not want that to happen– calling critics self hating Jews does not work anymore.

I see this as another example of our ruling class determining that we are getting too big for our britches, exceeding our freedoms, and presuming too many freedoms using our “stupid little commoner” interpretations of a complex document like the constitution.

It feels like our rulers have decided we’ve become smart enough to be dangerous. Whereas we used to be trusted with our freedoms, we are now dangerous with them. But in a bizarre turn, the rest of the world or anyone internally who can check our progress and punish our past, has inherited the rights we used to enjoy: free speech, equal protection, etc.

This shift in what rights are approved for the masses can be seen in how tolerance is demanded for one group at the expense of another. For example, Christian rights are an affront to the separation clause while Muslim rights are a tolerance and civil rights issue.

In another example, a person hiding wages to avoid garnishment uses a fake ID on employee tax records; he commits a felony against an agency that will tirelessly enforce it. All the while, an immigrant from Mexico falsifying the same records has committed the same felony but is now in line for tax refunds after finishing his “path to citizenship.” This is another story about tolerance and civil rights; the wage hider is simply a felon but the immigrant is understandably pursing his human rights.

“Law Enforcement” had better be deciding if they will even pretend to honor their oath of office to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…” or if instead they will just continue to bow and scrape before their Masters and then do WHATEVER they’re told. Civil war is coming soon.

Pastor Jones had a fundamental right to burn his Korans. They were his private property. I think his gesture was loony, but it was his money. I’d say the same thing about anyone wanting to burn Bibles, or copies of Mein Kampf, or Das Kapital, or even Atlas Shrugged.. Freedom of speech is inherently linked to private property. If property is regulated, controlled, or abolished, then so, by extension, is speech. You see what Obama and the FCC are up to in wanting to regulate the Internet. However, Zombie does discuss a very relevant issue,, which is the fear factor. Brow-beating or threatening Terry Jones (as is likely what happened) into canceling his over-publicized plan to burn a barrel of Korans, because burning them would provoke Muslims to riot and kill and run amok is (as they promised to do), on the face of it, an act of submission to Islam. I’m surprised Zombie didn’t make this connection.

If one refrains from taking an action because the action may incur the wrath of Allah or Wontonka or Attila the Hun or the thug down the street, who’s the winner? Imam Feisal Rauf has claimed that not allowing him to build his alleged “community center” near Ground Zero will be taken as an assault on Islam and provoke riots and vengeance and so on. It’s almost as though Obama or General Petraeus wrote Rauf’s public statement about the mosque. But then none of these parties has a clue about the link between private property and freedom of speech, except, perhaps Obama, spiritual grandson of Saul Alinsky, enemy of private property and freedom of speech. Obama, Petraeus, Jones, and Breyer have all submitted to Islam. This is how Sharia law is insinuating itself into political thought. We don’t demand that Islam and Muslims defer to secular law and individual rights; we concede that we should defer to Muslims and Islam, because it’s “religious freedom,” because if we don’t, Muslims will be angry and start flying planes into buldings again, and stabbing people to death, or shooting Americans at random.

Remember “High Noon,” and Will Kane having to face a gang of criminals out for vengeance? Apparently, Terry Jones and Justice Breyer haven’t Kane’s courage and sense of consequence. They’ve told the Frank Miller gang they can have the town.

What a complete moron! If anyone bothered to listen to the interview – which I doubt given the intellectual level here – you would understand what he was saying was that the court defines the law on a case by case basis. What does the Amendment mean – Does it mean you can libel someone? Does it mean you can reveal state secrets? Does it mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater? Is flag burning protected speech?

I agree with Zombie 100%. The fact that a Supreme Court judge would even consider the notion that the fact that communications can go “global” over the Internet a basis for “reconsidering” the First Amendment is frightening. It is even MORE frightening that this “legal genius” gets the tired “fire-in-a-crowded-theater” metaphor completely wrong.

Further, I submit that any Supreme Court justice who cites foreign law or precedent in support of his/her opinion on the constitutionality of an American statue has violated his/her oath of office and should definitely be impeached.

IMPEACH Breyer? As Pelosi would say, “Are you serious?”
Our courts are crammed with leftwing deconstructionists and have been for decades.
In the immortal words of Harry Blackmun, “The Constitution is whatever five of us say it is.”

If we were to impeach every justice who believed that “enlightened [leftist] world opinion,” and not the plain text of the Constitution, is the highest law, more than half of the judiciary would be funemployed.

But, other than the call for impeachment, this is a wonderful analysis of Breyer’s idiocy and its implications.

There is a problem with the Constitution. When it was written, the population was largely Protestant with some Catholics (“Papists”) and a handful of Jews. Protestants and Catholics butted heads for a while, especially following the Irish Potato famine, before generally caming to a common accord, in a Christian manner, and we all agreed that the government would be largely hands off religion. Even the Mormons bought in, once they gave up polygamy under pressure from the other Christians and Jews.

Little did the authors of the Constitution anticipate that we would see large numbers of Muslims come to this country and they didn’t foresee a threat from a Muslim movement based on religion seeking the overthrow of the Constitution and the imposition by force, if need be, of a Muslim theocracy.

So the old understanding that religion and government were arms-length now breaks down in the face of Muslim aggressiveness. “Freedom of religion” becomes a loop hole in the protection of Americans’ other freedoms.

Justice Breyer is not living up to his oath to uphold the Constitution. Americans expect a more vigorous defense from our officials of our rights.

Impeachment? Several of the justices and other federal judges could well be legitimately impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate based on their written opinions IF sufficient political power is available. And if we impeach one or more of them on these grounds, even with Obama in office, the Senate only has to confirm new officials that clearly meet the citizens’ expectations.

Either way, we have to wait to 2012 to 1) replace Obama and/or 2) get a clear conservative 2/3s in each house of Congress.

Funny; Felons in Congress are still at their desks and fully engaged in their everyday business of legislating MORE LAWS, and laughing all the way to their next fund raiser.IMPEACHMENT? THAT’S POLITICALLY INCORRECT AND RACIST!!!!!

And who would Obama then champion to take Breyer’s place? He’s already got Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. You want to give him another shot? If I had my druthers it would be to hope for the status quo at least until 2013 and then hope the balance can be shifted comfortably to the right while the next Conservative President is in office.

I am not surprise he said what he did. I would expect him or Ginsburg or Kagen to also say the same thing. In fact Ginsburg said last year that looking to international law was appropriate in deciding US cases. Hmmm

We feel Zombie made a real impact when she did great photo journalism of the left wing activists in the SF Bay Area—great and memorable stuff– a picture speaks a 1000 words etc.
We respectfully request that she build upon that considerable talent— we do not feel this linear verbal blogging is working out well for her— it is a crowded market with lots of smart, incisive pundits– we feel she is degrading her brand and not playing on her real talent— as a photo journalist.
We mean this feedback in good will.

Why is there always so much fuss about inciting muslims by our actions in exhibiting free speech? Let the a-holes go crazy and kill each other. The ones that die in their riots are muslims we no longer have to deal with in the future.

Did the reporter from Newsweek that “lied” about the US servicemen in Guantanamo flushing the koran down the toilet that led to riots and deaths ever face prosecution?

What happened to derail the 2 state solution was the assassination of Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin by right wing radical terrorist Yigal Amir in 1995.

That was the final blow to the Israeli brand world wide and the end of its dream to become the finance and technology hub of the Mid-East.
Since then Israel has managed to alienate all its remaining friends–for the US it is a crazy aunt in the attic to whom we dole out $3Billion per year with no ROI and with no compliance in return.
As PMs Barak and Olmert predicted Israeli is now on the old South Africa path, apartheid, pariah status, international boycotts and ultimately a multi-ethnic One state solution.

Rabins assassin — Amir was not some crazy loner.
Amir was a tool of the Settler militants and their supporters on Israel’s not-that-far Right; the nihilistic expression of religious fanaticism and bloodcurdling nationalism.
Amir personified Israel’s enemy within, the coup d’etat waiting to happen.

Are you kidding me? This is a Supreme Court Justice, appearing on national television before a national audience and as far as I know could very well have been broadcast to foreign countries. So no, he was definitely NOT musing he was making a point, or a case. This justice should be fired or impeached or better yet dipped in a bucket of tar and covered with feathers and dropped off in the closest Muslim country immediately and the Supreme Court should issue a statement that the actions of insane Islamic fanatics in any country anywhere in the world does not and will not influence our laws or void any part of our Constitution.

We have a Constitution. I’m pretty sure when the Justice took his job he also swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Apparently he is unwilling to do either.

I’d advise you all to actually listen to the excerpt below, and judge for yourself. Zombie dwells in hyperbole most of the time (in this post, and others), and it is important to note the context of the quote, and the final concluding words of Justice Breyer, or rather, the final words of the excerpt from the interview.

“…if it is answered by our court, it will be answered over time, in a series of cases, which force people to think, carefully, that is the virtue of cases.”

SWF#55 (the s stands for stalinist,the f for fool,the w for witch.What context? The fact that this scumbag voted to uphold the Mcain -Feingold free speech repression act? Breyer’s a spokesturd for new-world order tyranny,who would feel at home in Cuba.

#1 MIRIAN ROVE: Condescend all you want (or try to);it’s a favorite and stale libtard debating trick,and so much easier than coming up with a cogent argument.Faux condescension is a great psychological comfort to the mentally challenged,increasingly impotent, desperate,and pathetic lib/stalinist,and an endless source of amusement to those who value our first amendment rights.After all, even Bozo the clown has first amendment rights.